J-S53001-19

NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37

IN THE MATTER OF: M.H., A MINOR

APPEAL OF: Y.H., MOTHER

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

 IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF

 PENNSYLVANIA

 No. 999 EDA 2019

Appeal from the Order Entered March 4, 2019

In the Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County Family Court at 

No(s): 51-FN-000145-2019, 

CP-51-DP-0000141-2019

IN THE MATTER OF: M.H., A MINOR

APPEAL OF: Y.H., MOTHER

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

 IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF

 PENNSYLVANIA

 No. 1000 EDA 2019

Appeal from the Order Entered March 4, 2019

In the Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County Family Court at 

No(s): 51-FN-000145-2019, 

CP-51-DP-0000142-2019

IN THE MATTER OF: M.H., A MINOR

APPEAL OF: Y.H., MOTHER

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

 IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF

 PENNSYLVANIA

 No. 1001 EDA 2019

Appeal from the Order Entered March 4, 2019

In the Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County Family Court at 

No(s): 51-FN-000145-2019, 
J-S53001-19

- 2 -

CP-51-DP-0000146-2019

BEFORE: OLSON, J., STABILE, J., and NICHOLS, J.

MEMORANDUM BY OLSON, J.: FILED DECEMBER 03, 2019

Appellant Y.H. (Mother), appeals from the order entered on March 4, 

2019, adjudicating dependent1 her three children, M.H. (female born June 

2006) (Child 1), M.H. (female born May 2010) (Child 2), and M.H. (male born 

December 2016) (Child 3) (collectively, Children).2 We affirm.

The trial court summarized the facts and procedural history of this case 

as follows:

This family became involved with the Department of Human 

Services (DHS) on January 9, 2019, when DHS received a General 

Protective Services (GPS) report alleging that Mother had been 

using marijuana and phencyclidine (PCP); Mother admitted to 

Children’s school staff that she actively uses marijuana; Mother 

had been exhibiting paranoid behavior; Mother had been hitting 

Child 1 and pulling her hair; Mother tried to make Child 1 fight 

with neighbors; Mother made Child 1 stay home from school to 

watch Child 3; Mother often left Children home alone for unknown 

periods of time; Maternal Uncle attempted to seek inpatient 

mental health treatment for Mother, but Mother refused 

treatment; Children were residing in Maternal Grandmother’s 

home; Mother’s whereabouts were unknown at the time of the 

report; the family home was dirty and infested with cockroaches; 

Child 1 receives emotional support services at school and has 

exhibited combative and physically aggressive behavior toward 

school staff, which has increased over time; Maternal 

Grandmother is afraid of Mother due to Mother’s behavior; 

____________________________________________

1 Pursuant to the Juvenile Act, 42 Pa.C.S.A. § 6302, et seq.

2

 Each child has a different father. One father was deceased at the time of 

the adjudication hearing. N.T., 3/4/2019, at 11. The other two fathers were 

incarcerated and were not served with notice of the adjudication hearing. Id.

at 10-13. They are not parties to the current appeal. 
J-S53001-19

- 3 -

Maternal Grandmother did not want DHS involved with the family; 

on January 2, 2019, Mother’s speech with school staff was 

unfocused, paranoid, and tangential. [The GPS] report [was] 

pending determination. On the same day, DHS went to the home 

of the Maternal Grandmother, who denied the allegations. 

Maternal Grandmother admitted that Mother had mental health 

problems but denied that Mother used drugs. Maternal 

Grandmother stated that she was not afraid of Mother and that 

Child [1] and Child 2 had been residing with her for the last two 

months. Child 1 and Child 2 also denied the allegations. Maternal 

Grandmother stated that Mother had been evicted from her home 

for an unknown reason and that she lacked stable housing. DHS 

left a letter for Mother requesting that she contact DHS.

On January 10, 2019, Mother contacted DHS and confirmed 

receipt of the letter that was left for Mother with Maternal 

Grandmother. DHS met with Mother later that day, and Mother 

denied the allegations. Mother stated that her landlord illegally 

evicted her in retaliation because she complained about bedbugs 

in the home. Mother also admitted that she had an outstanding 

warrant for her arrest for failure to pay a parking ticket. Mother 

stated that she received mobile therapy for Attention Deficit 

Hyperactivity (ADHD) and that she receives Supplemental 

Security Income (SSI) for Child 1. Mother admitted that she had 

threatened to cancel Child 1’s Individualized Education Plan (IEP) 

meeting scheduled for January 18, 2019. Mother claimed that she 

was staying at the Salvation Army shelter, but could not provide 

any documentation. Mother cancelled Child 1’s scheduled IEP 

meeting for January 18, 2019. Mother also refused to sign a 

safety plan allowing Children to reside with Maternal Grandmother 

because she lacked stable housing. On January 25, 2019, DHS 

obtained an [o]rder of [p]rotective [custody] (OPC) for Child 1 and 

Child 2, who were subsequently placed with Maternal Aunt. 

Initially, Mother refused to disclose the whereabouts of Child 3 to 

DHS. When Mother agreed to meet with DHS, she arrived but did 

not have Child 3 in her care. Mother later disclosed Child 3’s 

location on that same day. DHS subsequently obtained an OPC 

for Child 3, who was placed with Paternal Aunt. On January 26, 

2019, a shelter care hearing was held for Children. The trial court 

lifted the OPC and the temporary commitment to DHS was ordered 

to stand.

On February 1, 2019, DHS filed a dependency petition for 

Children. On March 4, 2019, an adjudicatory hearing was held for 

Children. At this hearing, testimony was given by the DHS social 
J-S53001-19

- 4 -

worker, the Community Umbrella Agency (CUA) supervisor, and 

Mother. After all testimony was given, the trial court found clear 

and convincing evidence to adjudicate Children dependent. 

Children were fully committed to DHS based on the finding of 

[Mother’s] present inability [to care for the Children]. The trial 

court referred Mother, Child 1, and Child 2 to Behavioral Health 

Services (BHS) for consultation and/or evaluation for family 

therapy, and such therapy to be implemented, when appropriate. 

Mother was also referred for a smoking cessation program, a 

parenting capacity evaluation (PCE), parenting, housing, domestic 

violence, and to the clinical evaluation unit (CEU) for a forthwith 

drug screen, assessment, and three random drug screens prior to 

the next court date. Mother was ordered to provide 

documentation verifying proof of her employment. Mother [was] 

permitted to attend Children’s medical appointments, if Mother’s 

behavior [were] appropriate. Mother was also ordered to attend 

supervised visits with Children at the agency for two hours within 

line-of-sight and line-of-hearing. Mother [was] to have no other 

contact with Children outside of the scheduled visitation and 

Mother [was] not to go to Children’s school or the foster parents’ 

home. DHS and CUA were ordered to explore relatives and family 

members for Children’s placement, since Children were not in the 

same placement together.

Trial Court Opinion, 6/25/2019, at 1-3 (footnote omitted). This timely appeal 

resulted.3 

On appeal, Mother raises the following issues4for our review:

____________________________________________

3 Counsel for Mother filed three separate notices of appeal, one for each docket 

number corresponding to each child, with corresponding concise statements 

of errors complained of on appeal pursuant to Pa.R.A.P. 1925(a)(2). On April 

5, 2019, the trial court granted trial counsel’s motion to withdraw and 

appointed new counsel to represent Mother on appeal. By order entered on 

April 29, 2019, this Court sua sponte consolidated the three cases for appeal. 

The trial court issued a single opinion pursuant to Pa.R.A.P. 1925(a) on June 

25, 2019. 

4

 Mother raised an additional issue challenging the effectiveness of her trial 

counsel in her concise statements, but she has abandoned that challenge on 

appeal and we find it waived. Commonwealth v. Dunphy, 20 A.3d 1215, 
J-S53001-19

- 5 -

1. Whether the trial court erred by adjudicating the [C]hildren 

dependent pursuant to 42 Pa.C.S.A. [§] 6302 without clear and 

convincing evidence that the [C]hildren were without proper 

parental care and control[?]

2. Whether the trial court erred by removing the [C]hildren from 

[M]other’s home pursuant to 42 Pa.C.S.A. [§] 6302 without 

clear and convincing evidence that it was in the [C]hildren’s 

best interest to be removed[?]

3. Whether the trial court erred by finding that [DHS] made 

reasonable efforts to prevent or eliminate the need for removal 

of the [C]hildren from [M]other’s home without clear and 

convincing evidence to prove that such reasonable efforts were 

actually made by DHS[?]

Mother’s Brief at 7.

Mother’s three issues are inter-related and we will examine them 

together. First, Mother argues that DHS did not prove by clear and convincing 

evidence that Children were without proper care or control. Id. at 11-12. 

More specifically, Mother claims that DHS failed to prove that Mother suffered 

from mental health issues and that the allegation “was completely refuted by 

the licensed, professional psychologist that examined [M]other at [an] 

evaluation.” Id. at 11. Mother further argues she disproved the allegation 

that she was using PCP regularly and while she acknowledged she used 

____________________________________________

1218 (Pa. Super. 2011) (Issues raised in Pa.R.A.P. 1925(b) statement that 

are not included in appellate brief are abandoned). Issues are waived for 

failing to present any argument in support thereof. See Commonwealth v. 

Woodard, 129 A.3d 480, 509 (Pa. 2015) (holding that “where an appellate 

brief fails to ... develop an issue in any other meaningful fashion capable of 

review, that claim is waived. It is not the obligation of an appellate court to 

formulate appellant's arguments for [her].”). 
J-S53001-19

- 6 -

marijuana in the past, Mother no longer uses marijuana and there was no 

evidence that her prior use jeopardized Children. Id. at 12. Mother also 

asserts that “the evidence provided at the adjudicatory hearing regarding 

[M]other’s unemployment and lack of stable housing was insufficient to 

establish a lack of proper parental care by clear and convincing evidence.” Id.

Mother claims she was employed as a home health aide at the time of the 

adjudication hearing. Id. Mother avers that although she was “improperly 

evicted from her previous home, she was residing with the [C]hildren in the 

home of [M]aternal [G]randmother[,]” when “DHS insisted that [M]other 

vacate that home as part of a safety plan, yet offered no alternative for 

[M]other and the [C]hildren to remain together.” Id. Next, for the same 

reasons as set forth above, Mother contends that DHS failed to present 

evidence that removing Children from Mother was in their best interest. Id.

at 13. Finally, Mother argues that DHS did not make reasonable efforts to 

prevent or eliminate the need for removal of Children and did not establish 

the necessity of emergency placement. Id. at 14. She claims that when she 

refused to implement a safety plan so Children could reside with Maternal 

Grandmother, “DHS separated the [C]hildren from not only [M]other, but also 

from Maternal Grandmother [and that t]hese actions prove the vindictiveness 

of DHS [] indicating that they [were] willing to allow the [C]hildren to suffer 

in order to punish [M]other[.]” Id. 

Our standard and scope of review in dependency cases is well settled:
J-S53001-19

- 7 -

[W]e must accept the facts as found by the trial court unless they 

are not supported by the record. Although bound by the facts, we 

are not bound by the trial court's inferences, deductions, and 

conclusions therefrom; we must exercise our independent 

judgment in reviewing the court's determination, as opposed to 

its findings of fact, and must order whatever right and justice 

dictate. We review for abuse of discretion.[5] Our scope of review, 

accordingly, is of the broadest possible nature. It is this Court's 

responsibility to ensure that the record represents a 

comprehensive inquiry and that the hearing judge has applied the 

appropriate legal principles to that record. Nevertheless, we 

accord great weight to the court's fact-finding function because 

the court is in the best position to observe and rule on the 

credibility of the parties and witnesses.

Interest of K.C., 156 A.3d 1179, 1183 (Pa. Super. 2017) (citation omitted).

This Court has previously explained:

Section 6302(1) of the Juvenile Act defines a dependent child as 

one who

is without proper parental care or control, subsistence, 

education as required by law, or other care or control 

necessary for his physical, mental, or emotional health, or 

morals. A determination that there is a lack of proper 

parental care or control may be based upon evidence of 

conduct by the parent, guardian or other custodian that 

places the health, safety or welfare of the child at risk, 

including evidence of the parent's, guardian's or other 

custodian's use of alcohol or a controlled substance that 

places the health, safety or welfare of the child at risk.

42 Pa.C.S.A. § 6302(1). Further, we have explained that the 

question of whether a child is lacking proper parental care or 

control so as to be a dependent child encompasses two discrete 

questions: whether the child presently is without proper parental 

care and control, and if so, whether such care and control are 

immediately available. The burden of proof in a dependency 

proceeding is on the petitioner to demonstrate by clear and 

____________________________________________

5 “An abuse of discretion is not merely an error of judgment, but is, inter alia, 

a manifestly unreasonable judgment or a misapplication of law.” In Interest 

of C.K., 165 A.3d 935, 941 (Pa. Super. 2017).
J-S53001-19

- 8 -

convincing evidence that a child meets that statutory definition of 

dependency.

Interest of S.U., 204 A.3d 949, 963 (Pa. Super. 2019) (internal case 

citations, quotations, and original brackets omitted).

After determining that a child is dependent, this Court has explained 

that, consistent with the best interests of the child, a trial court may make an 

appropriate disposition in order to protect the child’s physical, mental, and 

moral welfare, including transferring temporary custody to a public agency. 

In re M.L., 757 A.2d 849, 850–851 (Pa. 2000); see also In re L.C., II, 900 

A.2d 378, 381 (Pa. Super. 2006). We have stated:

Even after a child has been adjudicated dependent, however, a 

court may not separate that child from his or her parent unless it 

finds that the separation is clearly necessary. Such necessity is 

implicated where the welfare of the child demands that he [or she] 

be taken from his [or her] parents’ custody.

In re G.T., 845 A.2d 870, 873 (Pa. Super. 2004) (quotations and citations 

omitted) (brackets in original).

“Prior to entering any order of disposition [...] that would remove a 

dependent child from his home, the court shall enter findings on the record or 

in the order of court [...] that continuation of the child in his home would be 

contrary to the welfare, safety or health of the child[.]” 42 Pa.C.S.A. 

§ 6351(b)(1). The trial court is to determine “whether reasonable efforts were 

made prior to the placement of the child to prevent or eliminate the need for 

removal of the child from his home, if the child has remained in his home 

pending such disposition [or] if preventive services were not offered due to 
J-S53001-19

- 9 -

the necessity for an emergency placement, whether such lack of services was 

reasonable under the circumstances[.]” 42 Pa.C.S.A. § 6351(b)(2)-(3). 

Here, at the dependency hearing, Mother testified that she was living in 

a shelter for single female abuse victims, but refused to provide the address 

saying that the information was private in order to protect the other abused 

women staying there. N.T., 3/4/2019, at 86-87. Mother did not provide DHS 

with housing information so that the agency could conduct a home 

assessment. Id. at 31-32. Moreover, DHS was not able to secure Child 3’s 

location and Mother was not forthcoming about it initially. Id. at 33-36. 

Mother and other family members were disrupting Child 1 and Child 2 at their 

school, removing them from class to speak with them without supervision. 

Id. at 60-61; 104. Mother cancelled an IEP evaluation at school for Child 1. 

Id. at 32. Mother disrupted Children’s subsequent kinship and foster care 

placements, by telephoning Children incessantly, resulting in multiple 

placement changes for each of the Children. Id. at 37-44; 104. Children had 

not seen a doctor, dentist, or ophthalmologist in years. Id. at 43. Mother 

admitted that she was using marijuana during her pregnancy with Child 3 and

was smoking marijuana regularly until DHS got involved in this case. Id. at 

76-77. Mother refused DHS’s safety plan services. Id. at 98-100.

DHS established by clear and convincing evidence that Children were 

without proper parental control. The evidence established that Mother placed 

the health, safety and welfare of Children at risk. Children have not received 

adequate medical, dental or vision care in years. Children did not have stable 
J-S53001-19

- 10 -

housing. Mother consistently disrupted Children’s education and their kinship 

and foster care placements. This evidence established that Children were 

without proper care. Moreover, DHS offered Mother services to develop a 

safety plan and to obtain appropriate housing, but Mother refused. As such, 

the trial court determined that DHS made reasonable efforts to avoid placing 

Children as required under § 6351(b). Trial Court Opinion, 6/25/2019, at 7. 

Furthermore, the trial court heard testimony that safety checks were 

performed for Children the month prior to the adjudication hearing and it was 

determined that their basic needs were being met in their current placements. 

N.T., 3/4/2019, at 118. At that time, DHS was open to exploring other family 

members as possible kinship resources for Children. Id. at 45-46. “[T]he 

trial court found it in Children’s best interest, as to their safety and well-being, 

to remain placed in their respective foster and kinship homes.” Trial Court 

Opinion, 6/25/2019, at 7. We discern no abuse of discretion. Accordingly, 

we conclude that the trial court properly adjudicated Children dependent 

based upon Mother’s inability to provide proper parental control or care for 

Children, DHS made reasonable efforts to avoid placing Children as required 

under § 6351, and the record supports the trial court’s determination that 

Children’s best interests are served by remaining in their current DHS 

placements. As such, Mother’s appellate arguments lack merit.

Order affirmed.
J-S53001-19

- 11 -

Judgment Entered.

Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq.

Prothonotary

Date: 12/3/19